Josh, I would like to add my thoughts to your – well-put post, here:
“Intolerance of homosexuality, however, is one of the key factors for identifying potential … extremists.” Intolerance of the free exercise of religion, however, is also one of the key factors for identifying potential … extremists.” (And) ” … David Cameron’s efforts at being “intolerant of intolerance” are going to run into some very difficult situations if the rule of law and liberty are going to endure.”
“The US Hate Crimes Act, passed in October 2009 … was the first (statutory) federal law to provide protections to transgender people.” The First Armament’s free exercise of religion is the first Amended Constitutional federal law to provide protections to the people’s free exercise of religion.
Liberty, of the free exercise of religion “… is essential to human existence and is the same soil for the growth of virtue and love. In other words, liberty is not the problem. Moral decay and the breakdown of families, churches, and other communities are what leave young people vulnerable to the radicalization…” of the free exercise of religion.
“Since the rulings in Windsor (2013) and Obergefell (2015), plenty of orthodox Christians (among others) have worried that hate crime laws at all levels of government could be expanded to not simply prosecute violent crimes against protected classes, but even to prosecute dissent and disagreement in the form of speech. Will pastors be jailed for preaching on the biblical preference for heterosexual marriage? “… keep in mind (reader) that under the First Amendment’s free speech clause, there is no legitimate claim of ‘hate speech”.
“(T)he First Amendment still stands in the way of those opposed to our most basic religious freedoms.
The question is how long it will remain that way and what will you do to defend it? “
Not only is does the First Amendment stand in the way – usurpation of the Constitution, by the majority Supreme Court Justices, and the President’s verbal approval — are the main culprits.
The charge of usurpation against Supreme Justices, by the legislative branch can be proven — by the Senate — with the supremacy Clause, Article VI., pointing to the Judiciary’s branch — of its limited power: “… (it) shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.
The power — of any federal branch of government — depends on the Constitution’s enumerations of the branches’ powers. The legislative branch of both the federal and State governments are equal, and “Constitutionally”, the same – they make law. The judiciary of the federal and State governments – do not make law. If the judiciary branch of either the State or federal government makes law – they have usurped their limited Constitutional power.
As commentators, we must emphasize the federal branches of their Constitution power — and usurpation therof.
Respectfully, John
(Facebook, author of The Tribute)